Of course, he didn’t have much competition. Maguire was the only mayoral candidate to show up to the Richmond all-candidates meeting on Tuesday evening.

Now that we are post-Labour Day, the campaign is moving into full swing across the city. Kudos to the Richmond Village Association for organizing their meeting early in this election season, and inviting everyone who’s running for mayor, councillor and school-board trustee.

While both council candidates in Rideau-Goulbourn ward — incumbent Scott Moffatt and recent challenger Dan Scharf — were able to attend, only two of the folks running for school trustee made it.

The big hole in the evening was the absence of Mayor Jim Watson. He explained that he doesn’t engage in debates until the registration deadline has passed because the list of candidates can change. This year, that deadline is Sept. 12 (at 2 p.m., to be exact). And to be fair to Watson, he’s been consistent with his personal policy. In 2010, he didn’t participate in any debates until three days after the registration deadline. Watson points out that he was invited to a debate in the spring of 2010, when Alex Cullen was still in the running for the top job but who later ran, unsuccessfully, for re-election in Bay ward instead.

Now, that doesn’t mean Watson can’t participate in debates. He simply chooses not to do so before a particular date, which is his prerogative. (Watson also said that he was already booked for Tuesday evening by the time the community association contacted his team). However, in Toronto, there have already been a number of debates attended by most, if not all, candidates, including Karen Stintz who has since dropped out of that city’s mayoral race. It’s not altogether obvious why it’s such a bad thing to debate candidates who might withdraw later in the campaign.

Related

From a voter’s perspective, at least, the more of these meetings the better. Even though Tuesday was the first day of school, more than 70 people were interested enough to attend the Richmond meeting — the highest attendance the community association has had in a year.

Say what you will about the importance of social media and campaign literature, but most of us want to see our candidates in action. We want to hear how clearly and convincingly they can explain their ideas, whether they can think on their feet, and whether they have a real grasp of the issues. (For example, Scharf was well-spoken and seemed intelligent, but a couple of times had to admit he didn’t know much about certain issues as he’d only been campaigning three weeks. It will be interesting to see if voters of Rideau-Goulbourn accept his justification for not answering their questions.)

From a candidate’s perspective, though, public meetings can be fraught. Incumbents are often put on the defensive — Moffatt spent a goodly amount of time answering for the Orgaworld debacle, for instance, even though he was not around when the deal was approved — and that would likely have been the case for Watson if he had attended. While Watson garnered almost half the votes cast across the city in 2010, he won just 34 per cent in Rideau-Goulbourn — fewer than the folks who voted for Larry O’Brien. And while there’s no reason to believe that his lower-than-average support in the area is the reason Watson declined this week’s all-candidates’ meeting, it’s likely he would have received a lukewarm reception in Richmond. Why risk it?

What’s harder to understand, however, is why long-shot mayoral candidates didn’t show up. Darren Wood was supposed to be at the meeting, but, according to his Twitter feed, he decided that a situation at an Ottawa Community Housing complex required his attention instead. Robert White said he didn’t hear about the meeting, although organizers said they emailed all the candidates listed on the city’s website.

That left the field wide open for Maguire, who was happy to speak about restoring weekly garbage pickup, procuring a high-efficiency incinerator, revamping Hydro Ottawa, scrapping the second phase of LRT for a commuter rail system to serve the suburbs, and general fiscal restraint.

Maguire makes some good points, but his arguments have some serious holes in them. And who was there to point them out? No one.

Comments

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.